Discussion»Questions»Legal» If the man-made laws prohibiting bigamy/polygamy are based on Biblical passages, is that in violation of separation of church and state?
No. The 1st amendment is about tbe gov not controlling the church. And the church not being the able to use the gov to force citizens to worship or support the church.
Separation of church and state is also not in the Constitution.
Our laws are based on the people who founded the country's value. And those are Judeo-Christian values.
This post was edited by my2cents at August 26, 2019 6:51 PM MDT
Churches are not taxed because they are nonprofit organizations and our gov allows people to donate to them and deduct it on their taxes. They do this to emcourage charitable donations to all nonprofits not just churches. To tax those donations would likely decrease donations.
I know the Catholic church feeds more poor people in the world than any other group. But I do not care. It is not my money. Many nonprofits have alot of stock piled money. Planned Parenthood for example and they use it to endorse and campaign for political candidates. I know they are not the only ones. Why are churches forbidden to weigh in on candidates but not other nonprofits?
This post was edited by my2cents at August 26, 2019 7:25 PM MDT
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
After reading, and re-reading this, you are 1/2 right. Jefferson's letter and ideals were not only outlined to reassure supporters that (the government) would not interfere with the church, but that the church would also not interfere and hold power within the government. In fact, Jefferson supported Christian libertarianism which is directly opposed to the use of state power to support religious beliefs.
President Samul Adams is also a founding father. In 1796, The US entered into a treaty with Libya called theTreaty of Tripoli. The pre-amble in article-11 reads as follows:
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Again, a founding father has clearly stated that the US is not an official "Judeo-Christian" nation. We should not be speculating what the founding fathers had in mind because they were of Western European descent because they were possibly holding Judeo-Christian values. This is being overly presumptive.
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. ... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding...." Thomas Jefferson (April 11, 1823, letter to John Adams)
This post was edited by Jon at August 28, 2019 2:25 AM MDT
For a man dedicated to this "wall of separation", he had funny ways ways of showing it.
Using Federal (state) money to build churches and fund Christian missionaries to the Indians. Attending church regularlly at the Capital building...the Church moved in before the Congress. Being part of a Congress whose first offical act was to appoint an Congressional Chaplin. A man who attended the Capital church exactly 2 days after writing that letter.
As for your quote it is disputed as to is authenticity.
I did not claim USA is an offical Christian country. Just as our language is not offical neither os our religion. And we do not want our corrupt politicians involved in the church. Nor the church leaders being politicians. Too much power for a human being to resist.
This post was edited by my2cents at August 28, 2019 5:37 AM MDT
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ”
In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said: "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation."[1] Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."[1]
Jehovah's Witnesses were often the target of such restriction. Several cases involving the Witnesses gave the Court the opportunity to rule on the application of the Free Exercise Clause. Subsequently, the Warren Court adopted an expansive view of the clause, the "compelling interest" doctrine (whereby a state must show a compelling interest in restricting religion-related activities), but later decisions have reduced the scope of this interpretation.
Yes. Absolutely they are. Just as the same type of laws at one time would have been used to categorize me as a criminal for participating in Homosexual activity. I don't believe these things are any of the Government's G*dd*mned Business.
Thankfully the courts finally struck down sodomy laws and eventually even recognized the right under the constitution for homosexuals to marry. Religions and those who are its followers may not be in agreement with such things being permissible but that hardly matters. We are supposed to be a nation ruled by civic laws not spiritual ones. If there is something allowed in our society that God frowns upon then that activity, as well as its eternal implications, are between the participant and their chosen deity.
Who the f*ck cares if polygamists marry? They're already living that way anyhow. Who are they hurting? NO ONE! Get over it "Uncle Sam". Find something more important to obsess over because our country is going down the toilet while you wonder and worry about who is screwing who and how.
Well then he should definitely be made to care for his "family" however that "family" may be structured just as any of the rest of us are expected to, and are required to, by law and he should also face any penalties regarding tax fraud or abuse of the welfare system. However I don't believe that should have any baring on whether or not laws are enacted or enforced suppressing the right to marry in accordance with their own beliefs or wishes.
We should understand that foundations of our legal standards (in Western countries, and I’m speaking particularly in the US, Australia and the satellites of traditional European powers) are drawn primarily from principles of English common law, and the overarching influence of the Roman church.
Remembering that for centuries, these were realms ruled by hereditary monarchies, Christians all, which presided over both their church AND state. They were one and the same authority. Interchangeable. Often one was conveniently invoked to the advantage of the other.
So did these long-held common values follow, through colonialism, into the laws of our current systems; but there is, I would argue, sufficient legal basis for laws against bigamy and polygamy beyond what is set forth in church doctrines.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at August 27, 2019 6:56 AM MDT
Because marriage is about property rights first and foremost. With one single (marriage) document - you cover all the property rights that would otherwise require reams of legal papers. If you listen to the reasons for "gay marriage", it all came down to having the same property rights as "straight marriage".
my2cents 